Arguments Against The Electoral College
The Electoral College is an integral part of the current election process of the United States. Created during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the establishment of Electors was developed through debate of the Virginia Plan which proposed that Congress should elect the president. However, concerns of the president being controlled by Congress and fears over a small group of individuals being able to dictate who would hold office, presented the need to change the plan. The Committee of Eleven created the Electoral College in an attempt to proportionately divide state votes among delegates in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress. In understanding this, it becomes evident that the Electoral College and its processes
…show more content…
This would result in a type of political bargaining that would erode the nature of the national elections. However, it is pointed out that this would be the result of regionalism in voters, which there is no evidence of. “Most social scientists talk about the growing nationalism of America and not about increasing regionalism” (Arrington, 1984, p. 247). The argument that these manipulations can take place is therefore predicated on a misinformed understanding of how these types of elections can have an effect on the priorities of the various individuals and interested parties who are taking part. This demonstrates a point to the argument which seems to be based on notions of political entitlement that are not necessarily the case. In this sense, it is evident that there is a lack of consideration given to the current state of affairs and the developments that would occur if the direct election was implemented. (Third party …show more content…
It is important to consider the development of a new system of national elections and the issues that would result. Implementing the direct election would lead to “a host of defects that would make electoral misfires more likely and trigger a series of political and constitutional crises” (Williams, 2011, p. 173). This would be a source of instability moving forward as these changes would require changes to the current system and would need to have the agreements among several states in a subconstitutional or binding form or an amendment to the Constitution ratified by two thirds of the states. The new proposed system “risks creating a presidential election system that is neither workable nor fair” (Williams, 2011, p. 173). While it is argued that the direct election would promote fairness and representation, it would likely be the case that these factors would be reduced in this scenario. It is therefore essential to develop a coherent framework for implementing such a strategy. (Implementing direct
This would result in a type of political bargaining that would erode the nature of the national elections. However, it is pointed out that this would be the result of regionalism in voters, which there is no evidence of. “Most social scientists talk about the growing nationalism of America and not about increasing regionalism” (Arrington, 1984, p. 247). The argument that these manipulations can take place is therefore predicated on a misinformed understanding of how these types of elections can have an effect on the priorities of the various individuals and interested parties who are taking part. This demonstrates a point to the argument which seems to be based on notions of political entitlement that are not necessarily the case. In this sense, it is evident that there is a lack of consideration given to the current state of affairs and the developments that would occur if the direct election was implemented. (Third party …show more content…
It is important to consider the development of a new system of national elections and the issues that would result. Implementing the direct election would lead to “a host of defects that would make electoral misfires more likely and trigger a series of political and constitutional crises” (Williams, 2011, p. 173). This would be a source of instability moving forward as these changes would require changes to the current system and would need to have the agreements among several states in a subconstitutional or binding form or an amendment to the Constitution ratified by two thirds of the states. The new proposed system “risks creating a presidential election system that is neither workable nor fair” (Williams, 2011, p. 173). While it is argued that the direct election would promote fairness and representation, it would likely be the case that these factors would be reduced in this scenario. It is therefore essential to develop a coherent framework for implementing such a strategy. (Implementing direct